And yet, you conveniently forget that it was the govt who made the claim to begin with.

And still, it has yet to dawn on you why they would create a cover story after losing trace of an international flight.Think about it for a moment, they know the plane had been stolen, they had been in contact with the pilot long after he stole the plane, till he signed off one last time.

Wouldn't you want people to think we're not that incompetent?

They (the govt) lost a plane, they knew everyone on the plane was dead early on, they knew the pilot was still flying the plane, so why didn't he just crash it and get it over with?Because they never intended on crashing it in the first place, that's why.

Like I said, if you have evidence it crashed, then post it, otherwise drop it!

If something is too good to be true then it probably isn't, it would be perfect timing though. In anycase WMD was just one of the reasons Rumsfeld gave Bush to invade Iraq, for posterity sake he made a big mistake focusing only on WMD's.

The AUMF - 2002, contained some 22 separate reasons for using force against the Saddam regime in Iraq; one dealt with WMD. It wasn't Bush or Rumsfeld who concentrated on WMD's, it was the media, to give their Dem allies an out. And even on that they lied and distorted. No they didn't find missiles with nuclear/biological/chemical warheads, sitting on launching pads. But they did find some of these weapons, and facilities to make more. If the media had been honest - which is sort of like expecting pigs to accelerate to mach two - they would have pointed out that President Bush had said long ago, that the object was to stop terrorists BEFORE they got to the possession and possible use stage.

Logged

"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

Update Re: about those nonexistent Chemical weapons.They're still deadly as Hell, and ISIS has them.

This has to be hard for the NYSlimes to report.

The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.FROM 2004 TO 2011, AMERICAN AND IRAQI TROOPS REPEATEDLY ENCOUNTERED, AND AT TIMES WERE WOUNDED BY, CHEMICAL WEAPONS THAT WERE HIDDEN OR ABANDONED YEARS EARLIER.It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake. The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out?

There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out?

Somehow I accidentally posted my above response prematurely, but I was sorta answering what you're asking... Judging the NYT on their past behavior, the article comes-off as a kind of sideshow distraction to the Marx Bro's other troubles right now. I'm glad they wrote it, but... part of the story should be about themselves (the NYT) yucking-it-up in '04-thru-'06, parroting that America only invaded Iraq to steal their oil.

There is something about this story that has me puzzled. Supposedly, these finding began in 2004 when GWB was still POTUS. He was being hammered by the dems and the MSM about lying about the existence of WMD's. If they were confirmed why did that administration not put the word out?

I guess they didn't want the insurgents to know that there might be chemical weapons lying around they could get their hands on. They probably thought it was better to let the media continue bad mouthing Bush, rather than have the insurgents hunt up a nerve gas weapon, and set it off on a major highway route.

Logged

"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!